The Closed iPad is a Moral Problem

At issue here is control. Apple wants to control what you can and can’t do
with your computer. (To my knowledge no one has claimed otherwise. Speculate
all you like on Apple’s motivation for wanting such control; that’s beside the
point.) I happen to find this morally objectionable.

Cory Doctorow and others have astutely noticed that people don’t respond much
to arguments based on morality, so they framed their complaintsdifferently, emphasizingpracticaleffects. That was a smart
strategy, because it let them be more persuasive, but make no mistake, this is
a moral issue.

Unfortunately, some have failed to see past the surface of these arguments,
causing them to write a bunch of increasingly irrelevantrebuttals.

Ultimately, I think both sides of this “debate” are falling victim to a
massive confirmation bias. If you read a statement like this:

What makes products great is their innovation, their creativity, other
ineffable qualities. Not the applicability of the first-sale doctrine.

You may just nod in agreement, or you may say, “hold on there, bucko, that’s a
hefty assertion, but an assertion is not an argument (or even evidence).” Same
goes for something like this:

Buying an iPad for your kids isn’t a means of jump-starting the realization
that the world is yours to take apart and reassemble; it’s a way of telling
your offspring that even changing the batteries is something you have to
leave to the professionals.

A hundred little implicit (dis)agreements get strung together when you read one
of these essays, and determine whether you find it convincing or repulsive.

The confirmation bias is especially strong here because everyone dances around
the real issue without saying it outright: the closed nature of the iPad is
morally wrong. As with any moral issue, it isn’t something you can argue for
or against effectively without a groundwork of shared values. Either you
recognize this issue or not. Either you consider it important or not.

Folks, of course the iPad will sell lots of units, because, in spite of its
moral bankrupcy, it is well designed, it appeals to mass-market consumerism,
and it is backed by Apple’s powerful marketing machine. This may or may not
qualify as “success”, depending on your point of view.

Thing is, that describes the litl spot-on. I think excitement about the iPad
is much less about its design, and much more about the simple fact of Apple’s
market position. If these radical design principles were really so important,
folks would have been just as excited about the litl’s launch way way back in
November.

This especially undermines all those put-up-or-shut-uparguments about
how nobody else competes with Apple’s design and that’s why the iPad is great
despite its closed nature. I have yet to see a single thoughtful comment
claiming that the iPad is good while the litl simultaneously is not. If someone
manages to do this, not through speculation, but having actually used the litl
(and even if we may disagree on the details or the conclusion), then great.
Until then, you can’t credibly claim that no-one but Apple produces good
design.